LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO., INC., PETITIONER, VS. JOSE SOTOMAYOR, RESPONDENT.

Petition filed by the Laguna Tayabas
Bus Co. for the review of the decision of the Public Service Commission in PSC
Case No. 63-2723 granting respondent Jose Sotomayor a
certificate of public convenience to operate three (3) jitneys (PUJ) for
passengers and freight on the line Pagbilao (Quezon) — Lucena City.

Petitioner alleges that the decision under review is void because
it was rendered by only one commissioner who considered it as an
“uncontested” case when, in fact, peti­tioner had timely filed its opposition
to Sotomayor’s appli­cation, on the ground that it
was entitled to protection and preference for being a prior and established
operator on the line applied for; that such being the case, the petition should
have been heard and decided by a division of the Commission, as provided for in
Section 3 of Republic Act No. 2677 as amended.

It appears that respondent’s application for a certificate of
public convenience to operate a jitney service (PUJ) for passengers and freight
on the Pagbilao-Lucena line was really opposed by
petitioner who claimed that, as a prior operator on the affected line, it
should be given a first opportunity to provide whatever additional service was
needed.  As a matter of fact, it also appears
that two other established operators on the same line – Pelagio
Glorioso and Florentina de Pala – filed written oppositions to respondent’s
application.

Subsequently, however, all said oppositors
filed their own separate applications to operate additional units on the line
in question.  Considering all these
applications – in­cluding Sotomayor’s – as
“uncontested” cases, the hearing officer, Associate Commissioner Alex
F. de Guzman, rendered favorable separate decisions.

The lone issue now, therefore, is whether the appli­cation of
respondent was an “uncontested” case.

It is obvious that petitioner’s contention is mainly based on a
technicality.

The financial capacity of Sotomayor and
the existence of public necessity for the proposed jitney service involved in
the latter’s application are not disputed by petitioner.  In fact, the existence of such public
necessity is proven by its own application for a new service on the same line,
and was established by its evidence in connection with its own application
mentioned heretofore (PSC Case No. 63-4091).

Upon the other hand, it is likewise clear that neither petitioner
nor the other two established operators on the same line, namely, Pelagio Glorioso and Florentina
de Pala, showed interest in increasing their units in
service on the line aforesaid only after Sotomayor
had filed his appli­cation, inspite of the fact that
they must have, been aware of the existence of public need for such additional
service.  This does not speak of their
interest in giving adequate service to the public affected thereby.

Lastly, in its own application (PSC Case No. 63-4091), petitioner
originally proposed eight additional units but later reduced them to four,
these four units to come from its own reserve units authorized in the order of
the Commis­sion in PSC Case No. 63-395. 
This can only show that peti­tioner did not wish or was not in a
position to fully cover and satisfy the needs of the affected riding public.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, We hereby affirm
the decision of the Public Service Commission appealed from.  With costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.